The Comparative Education Society of Hong Kong

Comparative Education Bulletin

No. 7 (2004)

The Comparative Education Society of Hong Kong

The Comparative Education Society of Hong Kong (CESHK) was founded in 1989. Membership of the society is drawn from educational institutions in Hong Kong and the Asian region. CESHK provides a forum for the exchange of views, development of partnerships, and shaping of new initiatives. The society is a member of the World Council of Compar-ative Education Societies (WCCES), and its officers have contributed to the functioning of that body. In the process, this work has given Hong Kong visibility within the wider arena. Among the activities of the CESHK is the annual conference. Through this, and other activities such as semi-nars, workshops and the society's publication, the Comparative Education Bulletin, CESHK brings together scholars across institutions. The CESHK has organized and will plan to have more study tours to enrich members’ experiential learning of comparative education in the region. CESHK Membership

CESHK membership entitles you to participate in a wide range of ac-tivities, such as seminars, conferences, and study visits. Members enjoy a 20% discount on books published by the Comparative Education Re-search Centre at the University of Hong Kong, and a reduced registration fee for the WCCES's World Congress of Comparative Education. Sub-scription fees for 2004 are HK$150 (HK$100 for students). Officers 2004-2006 President: Joshua Ka-ho MOK Vice President: Greg FAIRBROTHER Secretary: Emily MANG Treasurer: XIAO Jin Committee Members: Mark BRAY Suk-ying WONG Past President: Kin-yuen IP Editor, Comparative Education Bulletin Greg Fairbrother, with the assistance of Jiang Kai, Emily Mang, Mark Bray

Website: www.hku.hk/cerc/ceshk

CESHK is a member of the World Council of Comparative Education Societies

Comparative Education Bulletin No. 7 (2004)

Introduction i Greg Fairbrother and Joshua Ka-ho Mok Comparative Education in an Increasingly Globalised World 1 Lynn Davies Genealogical Reflections upon Historical Development of 27 Comparative Education in Hong Kong and Macau Percy Kwok Comparing the Portrayal of World War II in School History 34 Textbooks: Epistemological and Methodological Issues in Comparative Textbook Research Jason Nicholls Schools, Parents and Communities as Partners in Hong Kong 38 and Singapore Maria Manzon Two Music Syllabi: A Comparison of Hong Kong and Taiwan 44 Anthony Kai Chi Lau 中國長興縣的學券專案 49 胡競菲 上海、重慶企業職工對技能需求的影響因素：三水平分析 54 王蕊 Cultural Minority Students in Hong Kong: Critical Issues 57 and Policy Considerations Stella Chong Measuring Intercultural Sensitivity: Comparative Research 61 at an International School Jan Westrick New Books in Comparative Education 65

i

Introduction Greg Fairbrother and Joshua Ka-ho Mok

This issue of the Comparative Education Bulletin deals with a wide range of issues related to comparative education and broader educational concerns in Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Mainland China. Its articles cover topics including curriculum and textbooks, home-community-school partnerships, school vouchers, educational decentrali-zation, human resource development, cultural minority students, cross-cultural understanding, and the role of, and challenges to, comparative education itself.

The first three articles deal with issues in the field of comparative ed-ucation. Lynn Davies, in a special contribution based on her Keynote Address to the 2004 CESHK Annual Conference, examines the role of comparative education in challenging commonly-held notions about edu-cation and economic development, education and conflict, and education and social justice. She also proposes an agenda for comparative educa-tion research in the age of globalization to demonstrate how the field can contribute to a better world. Percy Kwok offers a brief history of orga-nized comparative education in Hong Kong and Macau, deconstructing the discourse of the CESHK 2002 conference and surveying develop-mental trends in the local field. He also draws attention to the challenges of globalization for comparative education in the international city that is Hong Kong, and offers a number of suggestions to face them. Stressing the importance of sensitivity in carrying out research using textbooks, Jason Nicholls conducts a critical survey of two comparative studies of the portrayal of World War Two in school textbooks. He concludes that textbook researchers must deal explicitly with methodological issues in order to contribute meaningfully to scholarly debate.

The next set of articles report on some of the latest research in the field. Maria Manzon examines parent and community partnerships with schools in Hong Kong and Singapore, and identifies key local and global influences on their evolution. Anthony Lau compares music curricula in Hong Kong and Taiwan, focusing on the balance of Chinese and non-Chinese music content. Both of these contributors draw attention to the influence of foreign models, education, and training on educational phe-nomena in Asian contexts. Hu Jingfei, on the other hand, contrasts school voucher policy in Changxing county, China, where public funds are used to support minban and vocational schools, with foreign policies which are aimed at enhancing students’ school choice and increasing competition among schools. Reporting on research human resources development, Wang Rui discusses influences on knowledge, attitude, and skill requirements among workers in given workplace contexts in Eastern

ii

and Western China. Based on a survey of workers in Shanghai and Chongqing, she analyzes their understanding of the importance of differ-ent skills. Finally, two reports deal with questions of multiculturalism in Hong Kong. Stella Chong focuses our attention on the problems faced by new immigrant children from Mainland China in Hong Kong’s schools. Based on her findings, she offers a number of recommendations for poli-cy related to education for minority students. Jan Westrick presents the findings of a study of intercultural sensitivity and student involvement in service programs at the Hong Kong International School. Bringing us back to key issues for the field of comparative education, she suggests that the diverse student bodies of international schools are in essence a microcosm of the samples that comparative educationists seek in con-ducting cross-national research.

The Comparative Education Bulletin is just one of the vehicles through which the Comparative Education Society of Hong Kong contrib-utes to discussions of theory, research, and method in comparative edu-cation. Several of the articles here have been drawn from papers pre-sented at past CESHK annual conferences. Current and new members of the Society are invited to participate in the dialogue at the upcoming 2005 conference, “Approaches and Strategies in Comparative Educa-tion,” to be held at the Hong Kong Institute of Education on Saturday, January 29, 2005. More details of this and CESHK’s other activities may be found at www.hku.hk/cerc/ceshk.

Compared to our previous issues, this issue of the Bulletin is much thicker in terms of volume. More importantly, this issue has successfully incorporated articles from different parts of the world to strengthen the comparativeness of the bulletin. What also makes this issue different is the introduction of recent books and other works of CESHK members. In future issues, we plan to have more critical analysis and deeper reflec-tions on comparative education by encouraging members and academics, practitioners, and friends working in the field of comparative education to publish their works in the bulletin. The success of the Comparative Edu-cation Bulletin depends very much on your continual support and contri-butions.

1

Comparative Education in an Increasingly Globalised World

Lynn Davies University of Birmingham Introduction

There are well over 50 million teachers around the world and nearly one in five persons alive today is either a pupil or a teach-er in a formal education institution. (UNESCO, 1999)

In this paper I would like to argue that comparative education has

possibly never had such an important function than in this age of different globalisations. This paper identifies two seemingly contradictory but eventually complementary roles for comparative education: firstly de-stroying myths and fighting simplistic or dangerous universalisms; and secondly extracting signs of hope which show how education – both with-in and regardless of culture – could contribute to a better world.

After defining what is meant by “increasingly globalised,” I prioritise three crucial types of relationships for scrutiny: the relations between education and economic growth or sustainability; between education and conflict; and between education and social justice. In each of these there are myths to be debunked and serious challenges to contemporary ortho-doxy. In terms of economic growth, comparative education can help mount the challenge to the taken-for-granted assumption that neo-liberalism, competition and markets are the only way to organise econom-ic and hence educational life. In terms of conflict, comparative education can reveal the sad reality that formal schooling contributes more to con-flict and violence than it does to peace. In terms of social justice, there are myths to be debunked about education necessarily contributing to less ethnic division, to greater gender equity or to breaking down divides between rich and poor.

The paper sets these three types of (highly linked) relationships against some conflicting features of contemporary globalisation. These include markets, transnational corporations, competition, revivals of na-tionalism and identity politics, knowledge management control and life-style consumerism/culture, but also – more positively – the spread of de-mocracy and human rights and the growth of international protest. In my current work I use complexity theory to understand social phenomena, and would argue not only that trends are non-linear, but linked in highly complex ways. Small turbulences can make an impact. This is both de-pressing and exhilarating for educationists and for commentators on edu-cation.

2

The first task, to question generalisability, is not just saying that con-text matters – comparative education has always said this – but that spu-rious or romanticised claims for the benefits of education wherever found need to be challenged. Why doesn’t education always promote econom-ic growth? Why has education failed to prevent war? Why has education failed to promote social justice, whether across the globe or within a na-tion? And in contemporary terms, how has globalisation further influ-enced these tenuous relationships?

Much writing is demonstrating the effect of globalisation on education – but it is less easy to look at the reverse, the effect of education on new and old global realities. Academic writing about globalisation is often written by “us” about “them”: Luke and Luke (2000) argue instead for a cultural politics of the local, to show the complexity of the multidirectional traffic of “flows.” We should avoid the globalisation of the discourses of globalisation. Or the irony of a sign that was spotted at the World Trade Conference: “Join The World Wide Movement against globalisation.” I would agree with Anthony Sweeting (1999, p. 278) therefore, that com-parative education can usefully be done in one country, using compari-sons of time and history. I like his claim that “non-linear, almost random, outcomes of educational practices seem almost daily occurrences.”

The second of the important tasks is not just to reveal realities, but to build a profile of how comparative education has actually influenced poli-cy. Reynolds and Farrell (1996) have had this influence in UK, it seems, through their highlighting of the supposedly superior performance of Pa-cific Rim countries in international surveys of educational achievement. Their study of Taiwan, however, significantly omitted reference to the largely homogenous nature of Taiwanese society, the common language and the role of the family in supporting education, as Watson (1999) pointed out. But we should be looking at not just the bi-lateral transfera-bility of policy and practice (the “what works” syndrome), but broader po-litical questions about what education is for, and whom it benefits.

Broadfoot (1999, p. 25) defines comparative education as “centred on the more general project of explaining and exploring the nature of so-cial life and conceptualising this in a way that provides both insight and guidance concerning how learning may best be facilitated and provided for in a particular time and place.” But does this go far enough? Learn-ing about what? Learning to do what? Do we want to facilitate learning in a terrorist training camp? Who decides what constitutes useful learning? Are these decisions becoming globalised? Globalisations First perhaps we need a brief review of the different sorts of globalisations that are occurring. The usual types cited are:

3

• The spread of common world culture, or the homogenisation

of culture and even language • The ascendancy of a particular form of capitalism, champi-

oned in North America and parts of western Europe as the attainment of ideals of free trade liberalism

• Knowledge transfer and increased ICT • More personal mobility • The spread of democracy, human rights and environmental

concerns Jones (2000) in fact distinguishes globalisation and internationalism – the former the emergence of a world economy and the latter the development of global solidarity through democracy and peace.

But typical concerns have been expressed, such as:

… strong Americanization which threatens to overwhelm all forms of identity that are not minor variations of global themes. (Marginson and Mollis, quoted in Stromquist, 2002) globalisation and dehumanisation are two faces of today’s capi-talism, which is more productive than ever. (Queseda Monge, 1998) … the euphoric marketing rhetoric of the global village, an incred-ible place where tribespeople in remotest rain forests tap away on laptop computers, Sicilian grandmothers conduct E-business and “global teens” share, to borrow a phrase from a Levi’s Web site, “a world-wide style culture.” Everyone from Coke to Mac-donald’s to Motorola has tailored their marketing strategy around this post-national vision, but it is IBM’s long-running “solutions for a Small Planet” campaign that most eloquently capture the equal-izing promise of the logo-linked globe. (Klein, 2002, p. xvii)

Globalisation is seen as not decentered, but as having definite points of origin – initiated by advanced industrial countries (Stromquist, 2002). Today’s globalisation seeks the union of science and industry; the apoliti-cisation of unions; the organisational fragmentation in the production pro-cess; the globalisation of cultural, information and business networks; and the unification and standardisation of pleasure and consumption.

Globalisation is felt in education largely through the uncontested adoption of initiatives in developed countries along such lines as decen-tralisation, privatisation, the assessment of student performance and the development of tighter connections between education and the business

4

sector (Stromquist, 2002). We should also not ignore the power of re-gional blocs: NAFTA left out explicit references to education, which meant it could be defined as “any other tradeable good or service.” A recent paper in the journal Globalisation, Societies and Education (Schu-gurensky and Davidson-Harden, 2003) examines the educational dimen-sion of the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which is a strategy to transform educa-tion into a tradeable commodity, with a free educational market. They argue that Latin American countries can be adversely affected by this in terms of their sovereignty on cultural policy, the quality and accessibility of their public education systems, the training of scientists and research-ers oriented towards national development, and the contribution of their education systems to the common good and to equalisation.

The EU on the other hand sought the creation of a European identity, operated through benchmarks and performance indicators as a means of bringing together different national goals and aspirations for education in a more coherent way at the European level. APEC wanted Information Technology as a “core competency in education,” with lots of networking, and links between education and business (Dale and Robertson, 2002).

Burbules and Torres (2000) in their important collection on Globalisa-tion and Education therefore identify three trends in educational writing and analysis:

• Policy buzz words such as privatisation, choice, decentrali-

sation; research agendas based on rational organisations and management theories

• The role of national and international organisations in educa-tion, including teacher unions, parent organisations and so-cial movements

• New scholarship on race, class, gender and the state in ed-ucation – multiculturalism, identity, critical race theory, femi-nism, postcolonialism, diasporic communities, and new so-cial movements

It is worth at this point examining the ideology of markets, as one of Bur-bules and Torres’ “policy buzz words.” The market does not have behav-iour attributes and does not make political commands. It is institutions and decision-makers who are market makers and not merely market tak-ers. Petras (1999) includes individual level actors in this – such as pro-fessionals and consultants, who shape the economic programmes of de-veloping countries to maximise the global interests of multinationals and receive lucrative fees.

There are some interesting studies which demonstrate the dodgy ef-fects of economic rationalist approaches, as those prototyped in the UK

5

and then exported. Luke and Luke (2000) examined the Rajabhat Insti-tutes in Thailand which have been enabled to set their own fee levels and establish businesses. So-called reforms meant funding cuts of 25-30%. The tendency across Asia has been for central governments to attempt to emulate Western systems’ responses to decreased funding, to new cur-riculum demands, and to changing student populations. As consultants, Luke and Luke had difficulties in contributing to such educational change, as they knew that 1) such reforms had not generated the kinds of produc-tive results promised in Australian contexts and 2) local and regional im-pacts of globalisation are best addressed by locally driven curriculum development, innovation and institutional reorganisation. Is this an irony, that globalisation is best dealt with locally? When you translate the steer-ing from a distance of Thatcherite Britain (quality assurance, performance indicators, corporate systems of accountability) it tends to get hybridised and indigenised – and not work.

James Porter in his 1999 book Reschooling and the Global Future is excellent on the way that a deeply flawed market ideology has been un-critically accepted in education, as elsewhere. He examines the key ide-as of market economics and “competitive equilibrium” and the assump-tions behind them – that all human conduct can be related to a ranking of economic choices and weighing up costs and benefits, and that the vari-ous transactions are optimal and balance out for everybody. It is an astonishing influence. But the theory does not explain actual behaviour of real people in uncertain conditions and without the information and com-putational capacity to make so called “rational” choices. Again, this is a linear approach applied to complex, non-linear situations and actors. He quotes Ormerod:

The promotion of the concept that the untrammelled, self suffi-cient, competitive individual will maximise human welfare, dam-ages deeply the possibility of ever creating a truly affluent cohe-sive society in which everyone can participate. (1994, p. 211)

Yet free market economics provide a powerful legitimising framework for the continued existence of privileges, or unrestricted individualism. Indus-tries and services have to be privatised and the market deregulated, with the state not interfering. This means a reduction in state services and in democratic concerns about welfare, justice and security.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those in established posi-tions of power have embraced a particular and largely erroneous economic theory because it consolidates their supremacy and control (p33) … The idea that a government can produce eco-nomic success and full employment by edict through the school

6

system is quite mythical and ignores the hard facts of globalism and the decline of national independence. It is also evident, that while government focuses so centrally on achieving high national economic yields in a competitive world, they fail to confront the reality of the inequalities within and between societies. (Porter 1999, p. 66)

But is democracy also being spread globally, to counter such tendencies? Perhaps only particular versions are. It has been argued by western lenders (and endorsed through various conditionalities) that democracy is needed as the life support of globalisation, as a free market requires massive information to be circulated and unfettered initiative to material-ise. Yet we see that international agreements can be achieved without necessarily engaging in respect for human rights or equity. Only a partic-ular and narrow version of democracy is adhered to. It was interesting that an adman for Our Master’s Voice said in 1934:

A democratic system of education….is one of the surest ways of creating and greatly extending markets for goods of all kinds and especially those goods in which fashion may play a part. (quoted in Klein, 2002, p. 87).

Let us turn then to the evidence base for the positioning of education in all these movements – or stagnations. Education and Economic Growth or Sustainability

In spite of frequent questioning, the link between education and eco-nomic growth remains one of the underpinnings of education and aid poli-cy internationally. So what is new with the advent of globalisation in terms of policy analysis? Not a lot, it would seem. The World Bank clings to a human capital theory approach. This is not surprising – it is a bank, and banks survive on investment. How we ever let a bank decide educa-tional policy will be a puzzle for educational anthropologists of the future. It is the equivalent of NatWest deciding the curriculum, or the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank telling us the length of the school holidays. The Bank’s Education Sector Strategy reveals no new thinking, no mention of education as a basic human right.

Crossley and Watson (2003) point out that the World Bank largely ig-nores educational research undertaken by non-Bank staff; it is still predi-cated on human capital theory which sees education solely as a means of economic expansion; it ignores local analyses and knowledge; and ig-nores the interdependency of education, health, rural development, the environment and economy (and I would add the political and stability con-

7

text); and the fact that education cannot be treated as a sector isolated from society as a whole. It ignores the causes of global poverty and ig-nores the academic critiques of the Bank’s role in actually extending pov-erty.

Economists such as Stiglitz (2002) make a fundamental criticism of IMF/Washington consensus approach – it does not acknowledge that development requires a transformation of society. Uganda understood this in its elimination of school fees, against the advice of economists. Stiglitz criticises the new “trickle-down plus” – the new version of the idea that growth will automatically help the poor, and structural adjustment will in the end somehow benefit education. In Latin America, growth has not been accompanied by a reduction in inequality, and in some cases pov-erty has increased. In fact it was land reform which preceded several of the most successful instances of development, such as in Korea and Taiwan – not on the Bank’s agenda. Access to education may alleviate poverty, but we need the studies which tell us in conjunction with what other factors. Similarly, we need to know about the role of education in conjunction with what might protect against economic collapse, as can be seen in parts of Russia or Eastern Europe.

Stiglitz’ argument is that government can play an essential role in mitigating market failures, slumps, recessions or depressions that lead to massive unemployment. In the USA and East Asia, governments have done this reasonably well. They have provided a high quality education to all and furnished much of the infrastructure – the legal system, regula-tion of financial sector, safety nets for the poor. He admits the debates – how concerned should we be about the environment if we can have high-er GDP, how concerned should we be about the poor, how concerned should we be about democracy and rights – but he argues for govern-ment intervention to compensate for market failures. The Asian financial crisis was brought on by a lack of adequate regulation of the financial sector, and Mafia capitalism in Russia by a failure to enforce the basics of law and order.

But all the linkages can be ignored in educational research. As James Porter argues, there has been unprecedented attention to educa-tion. Since success in the global economy has come to be seen as vital for national survival, the economic purposes of the school have come to dominate the political agenda. Education reform is seen as crucial to economic progress. The World Bank insists that aid and loans are tied to the use of education for competitive participation in the global economy.

As signs of global alienation and insecurity multiply, the growing pressure to control and limit education threatens to rob societies of a vital resource for sustaining democracy and for developing

8

the creative and varied responses that will be called for in an in-creasingly uncertain future. (Porter 1999, p. 7)

Yet Jürgen Schriewer (1999) in an interesting chapter “Coping with

complexity in comparative methodology” examines the findings produced by international comparative education research on the connections be-tween education, modernisation and development. What links there are between education, economic growth and employment, for example, are highly complex, indirect and certainly not linear, nor do they produce the same effects in different societies. “Instead they are as a rule not very pronounced, only partially effective, basically dysfunctional, or simply counter-productive” (p. 40). This relates to the old and obvious point about education being simultaneously a producer of social mobility and an agent for reproduction of the social order. Hence the failure of grand theory, of the grand narratives. Comparative education research tends to produce falsifications; but does anyone listen? Complexity is not popu-lar. Simple solutions and lines of rationality are preferred.

One example of complexity is the impact of vocational education. Schriewer reports on the increasingly extensive body of comparative re-search dealing with the interconnections between vocational education and training, qualification structures of the labour force, and work organi-sation in large-scale manufacturing units. He says:

Such studies have taught us to thoroughly distrust the thesis – posited by industrial sociology and the economics of education – stating that qualification-requirements and educational structures are largely determined by technological change, economic de-velopment, and the exigencies of a universal rationality purport-edly intrinsic to industrialism (1999, p. 39)

Instead, the studies have insistently shown us that vocational education and training is to a large extent determined by social and cultural factors. Strangely, educational systems appear relatively autonomous in this re-gard.

A recent study reported on the ID21 website (Appleton, 2004) asked whether investing in education reduced poverty, and provided evidence from Ghana, Uganda and Malawi. Some curious facts emerged:

1. Almost universally, education is found to lift people out of

poverty 2. But when compared with other forms of investment, the re-

turns on investing in education are on average lower 3. Thirdly, the returns in terms of increment in income are much

higher for those with higher levels of education

9

4. Macro evidence does not support the view that investing in education has an impact on underlying productivity growth.

5. The returns to education are lower in the rural than in the ur-ban sectors – with the result that one of the effects of educa-tion is to encourage a shift to the urban sector

6. Greater electoral competition leads to greater expenditure on primary education

Walter McMahon (2003) (a World Bank economist) in some ways

tackles complexity in distinguishing direct impact and indirect impact, as education operates through other variables such as the wider diffusion of technology, as well as private and social goods. One additional year’s schooling is associated with about 30% higher GDP per capita – but which came first? Education affects health – but is this indirect in terms of being able to buy better health care? There is nonetheless the claim that education contributes to a larger and stronger middle class, to civic institutions and hence to greater political stability. In spite of a lot of over-statements of governments to UNESCO and other holders of statistics about enrolment rates and their country’s investment in education, “pure externalities” include lower population growth, strengthening the rule of law, more community involvement and greater dissemination of knowledge. (Interestingly, education is associated with less water pollu-tion but more air pollution). However, what McMahon does not acknowledge is that all these positive effects are internal to a country, and ignore the effects on other countries of one country’s growth or political stability. An “educated” population does not necessarily challenge ag-gression towards another country, nor the source of their own economic prosperity through certain sorts of trade or imperialism. This is a vital omission in cost-benefit analysis of educational effects – and one where comparative education could have a crucial role.

There are interesting points too about democracy. Essentially all countries in the world with per capita incomes below about $600 are au-thoritarian. The one exception is India. Military expenditure has a nega-tive relation to democratisation. It could be that democracies spend less on the military and more on education; but McMahon suggests that rising income contributes to democratisation. Some regimes hang on longer with large military expenditure (North Korea?), but the eventual change over to fragile democracies from military dictatorships has been remarka-ble in the last 40 years in Latin America. The impact of secondary educa-tion is largest when there is a control for larger military expenditure, since the latter appears to contribute to rural poverty.

The problem with all this analysis is however that effects are very long term. Human rights increase by 8% in Africa on the average 40

10

years after education investment is increased by 2% of GDP. Most im-pacts are long delayed. This is a problem for comparative education. Achievement

But let me look at some of the relatively quick falsifications that we can engage in. Comparative education can destroy the myths about the relationship between test scores and economic growth, for example. In US and elsewhere, there is a culture of blaming schools for contributing to a less competitive global economy, less productivity, losing jobs to other nations. The false connection between test scores and economic growth then leads to calls for privatisation, a longer school year, more testing and more technical skills (Cuban, 2001).

Porter (1999, p. 82) quotes what Charles Handy has described as the “MacNamara fallacy”:

The first step is to measure what can be easily measured… the second step is to disregard that which can’t be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured isn’t really important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured doesn’t exist. This is suicide.

He also quotes me and others in the anti-school effectiveness movement, arguing fiercely how school effectiveness research dehumanises pupils – and teachers – by reducing them to “intake variables”; there is a cultural deficit, a stereotypical approach which appears to sympathise with the “underachieving school” for the “poor quality” of its intake. Alexander (2000) did challenge some of the simplistic “border crossings” of school effectiveness studies (arguing for Pacific Rim practices of desks in rows for example) by his contextualised and cultural studies of five countries. But much more is needed – particularly about comparing educational goals, not just processes.

Carney (2003) argues that global managerialist tendencies in educa-tion such as those represented by school effectiveness research actually distort the possibilities for schooling to contribute to societal development.

Evidence suggests that a focus on the technology of school ef-fectiveness encourages narrow definitions of good schools and, in the process, enables powerful groups to unduly distort educa-tion for their own purposes. (p. 91)

11

The role of formal schooling in the production of broadly educated, com-petent and democratic citizens is thus compromised. The Basic and Pri-mary Education project in Nepal shifted from inputs such as curriculum and books to “processes and outcomes,” especially managerial efficiency and improved exam pass rates. This particular approach to “quality” cre-ated space for donor-funded achievement studies that shifted attention away from the Government’s overall policy objective of democratic and inclusive schools, towards the technical and managerial inputs required to enhance pupils’ cognitive development. And this adds to inequality, to new forms of privilege.

In research terms, Carney asks for breaking the tight coupling be-tween educational research, policy and international comparison that characterises the School Effectiveness tradition, and to engage in forms of inquiry that locate issues of social inequality within considerations about schooling. We need critical ethnography – how stakeholders inter-pret various acts that constitute formal schooling. Are families actually colluding with policy makers about credentialism? Perhaps only the mid-dle class are; for rural people, it is a respite from oppression – or they are unaware of the benefits it might bestow.

This leads to the problem of testing and assessment. Business norms are being applied to education through a) “efficiency” in the transmission of knowledge (coverage, impact at lowest cost) and b) “equi-ty” in the shape of high standards for all, the competitive “world-class schools” syndrome. Another irony is that globalisation and the spread of neoliberalism seem to lead to a greater emphasis on national level measures of economic growth and sustainability, instead of regional ones. But this blames failure on the schools themselves. Accountability is operationalised on testing, and is standardized, particularly in “high stakes” testing (those used for major decisions such as graduation). But even economists admit that current achievement tests are not strong pre-dictors of economic success. 96% of variance in earnings in USA are not explained; only 6% of supervisory ratings correlate with education (Levin, 2000). Now, this isn’t comparative education: but why is this not repli-cated in lots of countries? In the developing world, testing has also be-come a major practice. Before 1991, only 4 countries in Latin America (Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Costa Rica) practiced nation-wide evalua-tions of basic education. By 2000, almost every country in the region was attempting to test student performance. In the adoption of the testing policy, UNESCO has played a role, so has IDB, World Bank, the Organi-sation of Iberoamerican States in Spain and USAID – all investing in as-sessment.

As can be seen, testing is not about diagnosis, but about competi-tion: as Stromquist points out, public/state schools are seen as essential-ly deficient because they operate under monopolistic conditions (with no

12

incentives to perform well). Therefore there are prevailing voices for pri-vatisation and/or competition to increase standards, improve efficiency and reduce costs, together with the ideologies of parental choice and vouchers. We need to look at the implications of the state shifting from a provider of goods and services (schools, teaching, credentials) to a buyer of goods and services produced in the private sector. This means com-parative analysis. Our own European study of pupil democracy found countries like Sweden and Denmark (economically successful, very peaceful, with a low income distribution gap) had features such as chil-dren not starting school until 7 years old, bans on competitive publication of results and encouragement of democratic participation in schools, with pupil consultation and real choice on curriculum (Davies and Kirkpatrick, 2000). Yet the UK does not look at this. Instead, it wants testing and national curriculum brought down to nursery level, i.e. longer surveillance and narrower curriculum, and even more emphasis on standards and measurable results. Literacy

Crossley and Watson (2003) examine the perennial debate over the relationship between literacy and economic growth. The UNESCO major report World Illiteracy in 1957 had three principles: that the best way of eradicating illiteracy is through primary education (a view which continues right up to Jomtien); that the higher the levels of literacy, the greater the level of economic development; and the greater the diffusion of literacy throughout the society, the greater the likelihood of industrial and eco-nomic development. At the time, there was little research evidence to support these assertions, but they have never really been challenged. These powerful messages, coming from such an august international body, profoundly shaped the thinking and actions of many governments. There has been much analysis subsequently about thresholds (that you need 40% to begin economic development) – but in fact India only claims to have reached 50% during the last few years of the 1990s. There is no agreed definition of literacy; and the global agendas have ignored the many different “literacies” in a culture, and how language is used cultural-ly in daily discourse in different settings. Has the emphasis on supporting international languages hampered educational development, destroyed local textbook production in indigenous languages and weakened local cultures? (see Brock-Utne’s [2000] scathing critique of “recolonizing the African mind”)

Similarly, Anne Hickling-Hudson launches in, criticising as dangerous and simplistic the World Bank’s assertion that advances in literacy may have done more to improve the human condition than any other public policy:

13

The way literacy has been used to solidify the social hierarchy, empower elites and ensure that people lower in the hierarchy accept the values, norms and beliefs of the elites, even when it is not in their best interests to do so. (2002, p. 568)

Computer literacy should be not just about technical skills, but so-cial/political analysis. The spread of communications (and increased mo-bility of peoples, and tourism) has also led to increase or globalisation of prostitution, child abuse or pornography etc. (Stromquist, 2002). The internet gives crime an extraordinary facility to engage in drugs and the arms trade, and to launder earnings through immediate investment in stocks. Learners need a critical analysis of this. I would argue not against literacy, but for different definitions of functional literacy which, simultaneously with basic decoding, begins from political literacy and health literacy. It is an irony that while economic models of schooling predominate, few schools would have economics education as the top compulsory subject. Education and Conflict

I turn now to the second main area of impact of education. Despite the lack of a demonstrable cause and effect relationship between poverty and conflict, nonetheless out of the 40 countries furthest away from the international development goals, some 24 are in conflict or emerging from conflict (DFID, 2000). Conflict has a self-sustaining nature: the state has often lost the monopoly over decision-making and there is large scale availability of arms. The diminishing economic power of the nation state links to consolidation of mass unemployment in most developing coun-tries and the rapid growth of similar conditions of enforced idleness in the industrial nations. Hence the regional trading blocs and a growth in pro-tectionism; and, more sinister, an extension of military power.

Where is education in this? While increased access to schooling can be shown to help political stability within a country, comparative analysis can question the myth that universal formal education also automatically creates international harmony.

In my recent book Conflict and Education: Complexity and Chaos (2004) I have examined the complex relationship between education and conflict. There is the more obvious effect of conflict on education itself – disruption, loss of physical and human resources, hardening of attitudes to the enemy, to the outgroup; but there is the perhaps less obvious im-pact of education on conflict. I firstly trace three sorts of contributions to the roots of conflict: social inequality or polarisation; dominant forms of competitive and macho masculinity and militarism; and hardening of eth-

14

nic or religious identifications rather than the encouragement of hybrid identities. Globalisation brings permeable borders, increasing diversity and awareness of diversity, but sometimes leading to a hardening of iden-tities, as I saw in Bosnia and Kosovo.

I then look at specific actions in schools: curriculum, physical and symbolic violence and forms of retribution, cadet forces, and individualis-tic competition rather than collaboration – not helped by the league tables and the competition between schools and between countries mentioned earlier. I do look also at the possibilities for citizenship education – which is in itself increasingly globalised, as are concerns about “global citizen-ship,” where we have a research project – and examine various sorts of peace education. But schools are far geared to preparation for war than preparation for peace.

As Porter so eloquently comments, The efforts to ameliorate the steadily growing divisions in the world are marginal and are failing to stem the dangerous and ul-timately disastrous descent into a world that is so split that many will assume that violence is the only available way to seize wealth or power … it is the pervading hopelessness and cynicism of the economically abandoned that may prove to be the most dangerous and ultimately destructive element … support for ter-rorism has its roots in the desperation of the reviled, the poor, the ignored and those that have no opportunity for a decent life or for influence or power in the existing situation. (1999, p. 39)

It is interesting that an economist like Amartya Sen, talking at the

Commonwealth Ministers conference in 2003, homed in on issues such as fundamentalist religious schools and the “narrowing of horizons, espe-cially of children, that illiberal and intolerant education can produce.” To define people just in terms of religion-based classification of civilisations can itself contribute to political insecurity (people belonging to “the Muslim world” or “the Western world” or “the Hindu world” etc.) He (and I) believe the UK government made a mistake in expanding rather than reducing faith-based state schools, “especially when the new religious schools leave children very little opportunity to cultivate reasoned choice and de-cide how the various components of their identities … should receive at-tention.” In the schooling of children, we have to make sure that we do not have smallness (not greatness) thrust upon the young.

A major concern in post-conflict societies is not to reproduce the ed-ucation structure that may have contributed to the conflict in the first place (Davies, 2004). We do have a lot to learn from some cases of humani-tarian education post-conflict, as it is based on principles of building con-fidence, giving skills, building collaboration, providing dialogue and en-

15

counters, and rebuilding political and public cultures. It is not about test-ing.

How does the globalisation of culture fit into this? It has been ar-gued that McDonalds did play a role in apartheid South Africa, where they provided the only place where different races could share public space on an equal basis. Yet the sponsorship issue paints a different picture. After a few years of Pepsi-sponsored papal visits, or Nike after-school basketball programmes, everything from small community events to large religious gatherings are believed to “need a sponsor” to get off the ground. “We become collectively convinced not that corporations are hitching a ride on our cultural and communal activities, but that creativity and congregation would be impossible without their generosity” (Klein, 2002, p. 35). UNESCO selling out to Daimler-Chrysler in their Mondi-alogo project is another example. Brand managers are envisioning them-selves as sensitive culture makers, and culture makers are adopting the hard-nosed business tactics of brand builders.

So now there is the tension in culture between the ways that globali-sation brings more standardisation and cultural homogeneity while also more fragmentation through the rise of locally oriented movements. Bar-ber characterized this dichotomy in the title of his book Jihad vs McWorld. Burbules and Torres (2000) argue of a third possibility of cultural homo-geneity and cultural heterogeneity appearing simultaneously – the “glo-cal.” But how you research this I don’t know. We do now have a pres-sure towards global citizenship, with exhortations to feel part of the great-er collectivity. Yet local community is the real cultural space, rather than virtual ones created by electronic communication and networks of flows of goods and services. Here, identity politics coheres around memories of conflict, failure, domination or nostalgia for a past age.

Citizenship education studies are seeing an increased number of comparative studies. But these tend to compare the curriculum or eval-uation processes of various countries (Torney-Purta et al., 1999; Kerr, 2000) and demonstrate how citizenship education is gaining prominence worldwide; but it is difficult to go deep into either the social and political context or into social impact. Torres (1998) argues that one of the prob-lems of citizenship education research is contextualisation, and that in order to grasp the tension inherent in citizenship education between in-clusion and exclusion, we need to look at the specific relationship be-tween the state, citizenship as political identity and citizenship education. We need to draw on theories of democracy and multiculturalism, espe-cially in diverse societies. One interesting IIEP study for example demonstrated that a code of conduct for teachers diminishes unethical behaviour. Teachers are the highest target of spending in post-conflict societies, so it is worthwhile to implement a form of social control which is effective, such as a code of conduct (IIEP, 2004).

16

I would say that two positive aspects of globalisation have been an agreement on human rights and the spread of democracy, however inter-preted. There has been a spread of environmental concerns. As Sen has pointed out, no democratic country has ever had a famine. In terms of enabling schools to counter negative conflict, my book develops the idea of “interruptive democracy,” which uses the ideas of dialogue, en-counter and challenge in order to promote positive conflict in educational institutions. Education and Social Justice

In my third area for exploration, we are talking about two sorts of ine-quality: between countries and within countries. Jared Diamond (1998) argues for history as a science (his book is about why some nations or regions have the “cargo”; and why some groupings formed political sys-tems while others remained in bands or tribes). He has interesting hy-potheses which bring together ecological or geographical determinism with historical accidents and individuals – hence the resonances with complexity theory. There are historical “wild cards” or “frozen accidents” – the QWERTY keyboard, or the 24 hour clock and the 60 minute hour based on the Sumerian counting system of 12 rather than the Meso American 20. Why did complex Andean civilisations not develop writing? How did the abundance of homophones in Chinese language, and there-fore the need for thousands of signs in traditional Chinese, influence liter-acy? Was there anything in India’s environment predisposing to rigid socio-economic castes, with grave consequences for the development of technology? Why was a proselytising religion (Christianity and Islam) a driving force for colonization and conquest among Europeans and West Asians but not among Chinese?

We do know that the world is becoming more unequal. The top 20% is a more exclusive First World Club in 1999 than it had been in 1965. Income differentials are widening, according to UNDP. In 1913, individu-als in rich countries earned 11 times those in poor countries. In 1960 this was 30 to 1, in 1997, 60 to 1 and in 1997 it was 71 to 1. Immense wealth is being created, accompanied by an increasing share of workers without contracts. Nike opposed the work of the Worker Rights Consortium, cut-ting funds to the universities which supported this.

On the whole, TNCs aim at making the world less risky and ex-pensive for commercial investment rather than seeking demo-cratic or humanitarian objectives. As a whole, TNCs have been gaining so many rights before the state that they are becoming the new citizens of the 21st century (Stromquist, 2002, p. 99)

17

There are “manic renditions of globalisation” (Klein, 2002) but “we in the west have been catching glimpses of another kind of global village, where the economic divide is widening and cultural choices narrowing.” MNCs, far from leveling the playing field with jobs and technology for all, are in the process of mining the planet’s poorest black country for unim-aginable profits.

This is the village where Bill Gates lives, amassing a fortune of $55 billion while a third of his workforce is classified as temporary workers, and where competitors are either incorporated into the Microsoft monolith or made obsolete by the latest feat in software bundling….On the outskirts of Manila…I met a 17 year old girl who assembles CD-ROM drives for IBM. I told her I was im-pressed that someone so young could do such high-tech work. “We make computers,” she told me, “but we don’t know how to operate computers.” Ours, it would seem, is not such a small place after all. (Klein, 2002, p. xvii)

MNCs and global companies are of course claiming that they are

great equalizers, promoters of diversity in images or race ; and that they brought down the Berlin wall single-handed. Murdoch told the world that satellite broadcasting made it possible for information-hungry residents of many closed societies to bypass state-controlled television. Crossley and Watson (2003) point out that often under government auspices, the wealthy classes and TNCs are seeking to expand private schooling in the belief that this will open up opportunities at a global or international level. The curriculum emphasises international languages, computer skills, in-formation sciences, mathematics, analytical skills etc. Yet this all leads to greater divisiveness.

If we now look within countries, Crossley and Watson argue that the signing of the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 which identified education as a basic human right has had a “profound influence on the shape of educational development throughout the world,” and can be seen to have influenced many of the newly independent countries’ consti-tutions and plans. I am less sure. How much is lip-service, and how much acknowledgement of human capital theory’s promise of economic growth and modernisation?

Diamond (1998) for example asks, why do people support klepto-crats? (leaders who keep most of the “tribute” for self-enrichment). He cites a mix of four devices that kleptocrats use:

a) disarm the populace and arm the elite. b) make the masses happy by redistributing taxes/tribute;

18

c) promote happiness by maintaining public order and curbing violence

d) construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy. Bands and tribes did have supernatural beliefs, but these did not neces-sarily justify centralised authority or transfer of wealth or maintain peace between unrelated individuals. When supernatural beliefs gained these functions and became institutionalised, they were transformed into what we call a religion. Chiefs would assert divinity, or a line to God, claiming to intercede; or would support a separate group of kleptocrats (priests) whose function is to provide ideological support for the chief. Hence the collecting of tributes for the construction of temples, the centres of official religion. Religion solves the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other – by providing them with a bond not based on kinship. It gives people a motive for sacrificing lives on be-half of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.

Has globalisation in terms of markets become the new religion? Or in fact education? Why is there not more resistance to elites? Is this the legitimisation function of education, now an international phenomenon?

Knowledge is perhaps the new religion – and has doubtful effects on equity. Concentration on knowledge is depoliticising, drawing attention away from conflict and controversy in economic, political and social terms (Stromquist, 2002). A key feature of “knowledge management systems” (KMS) is to reduce large amounts of text to short summaries. Policy makers apparently have not the time or inclination to read long studies. The APQC and other consulting firms promoting KMS argue that there exist such things as “just-in-time knowledge” and “just enough knowledge.” Are information and knowledge conflated? The World Bank calls knowledge gaps “information problems,” that is, they are nothing to do with critical or humanistic evaluation. Even social or political conflicts of interest about dams or forestry projects are reinterpreted by the World Bank as “lack of complete knowledge.”

In spite of the rhetoric about higher education for all, between 40% and 50% of jobs in the new economy will not require university training, but some type of work-based technical or trade credentials. There is a decrease in critical thinking in universities. Stromquist argues that with the growth of English comes the growth of Anglo-American functionalist modes of thought, framing of problems as technical rather than political. Ironically, universities do become more global in terms of students and marketing interests, but at the same time, their concerns focus on materi-al interests. There is a decline of sociology (especially in teacher educa-tion), although I think not in Japan or Europe so much. Stromquist cites

19

(anecdotal) evidence of the impact of competition among students, indi-cating that young university students in US tend to be more individualistic and less likely to be concerned with social issues. We see the emer-gence of the “organization kid” who rarely questions authority and who readily accepts his or her elite position as part of the natural order of life. In UK, we have the insistence on “evidence-based research,” concerned with developing and disseminating “good practice,” that is focusing on micro-task efficiency and disembedded from wider contexts (Tikly and Crossley, 2001).

The question of knowledge of context is an interesting one. Many (all?) comparative educators argue strongly for contextualised data: Broadfoot (1999) comments on the OECD indicators of provision, pro-cess, effectiveness and so on as enormously complex, yet its model is almost entirely detached from culture. We need more than just economic cultures, but cultures of conflict, peace and stability; and more important-ly, what these schools are trying to do with their process variables. What is the effect of EFA targets, except to drive poor district education officers to falsify their figures in order to gain brownie points, or converse-ly for governments to play down their figures in order to get more aid?

Higher education is increasingly dependent on business for survival, creating a new business norm in universities (Mok, 2000). In Singapore, serving industry is not enough: “universities must take on the new role of fostering an entrepreneurial climate.” Multinationals themselves are es-tablishing private universities, or their own programmes within universi-ties, particularly in instrumental fields – commerce, business or engineer-ing. Which way will comparative and international education go? This is of greater importance with the flow of students. Both altruistic and self-serving reasons will operate. There is a perceived need to foster social justice and sustainable development; yet also the need to become more competitive, so universities must learn what others are doing. Stromquist argues that a desirable direction for comparative and international educa-tion is to deal with problems that go beyond the nation-state, such as AIDS, ethnic conflict, gender asymmetries and environmental impact. I would add – or preface – conflict and peace to this list. Williams (2000) notes that the concept of “global security” is being redefined from ensur-ing safety through military means alone to understanding threats to hu-man well-being from development, environment and violence. Gender

20

Gender justice is a significant example or indicator of social justice in general. Here we have a mixed bag of change – there are more opportu-nities, but a weakening of the welfare responsibilities of the state and a depoliticization of culture. We still need to examine the rhetoric from in-ternational agencies about the importance of education for women – for the next generation, the family, the community – that is, not as a human right, only as a sort of multiplier effect. Evidence would in fact seem to show an even stronger human capital investment than for men. So eco-nomic and neoliberal perspectives prevail – that the integration of workers of both sexes into the international capitalist economy will eliminate pov-erty, as poverty is simply under-utilized labour. Poverty has the problem for capitalists of evincing low consumption levels. Over-consumption by others, and offering low wages, is of course not seen as a cause of pov-erty.

Global magazines are promoting apolitical and sexual identities, “de-lusory subjectivity” in young women, causing them to think of themselves as already free and equal to men. They do not see the need for political activity. But studies of successful businesswomen in Asia find global modern discourses coexisting with traditional practices, such as defer-ence to males or acceptance of domestic tasks. In certain Asian societies (Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong) women constitute the majority of uni-versity graduates, so one would expect to find a large number in high positions, yet this is not the case (Luke, 2000).

There are gains in school enrolment (access but not success). The use of quotas is very iffy, and needs much comparative research. Per-haps quotas work best in public office rather than in school or higher edu-cation enrolment. But if you still need quotas in work, then how effective is education? There has been a growth of women’s studies and gender studies – but for how long?

Ilon (1998, quoted in Crossley and Watson, 2003) claims that global-isation is having a new impact on female enrolments in schools over and above any local cultural constraints. She demonstrates that as TNCs seek cheap labour, the demand for a modestly educated workforce rises. Since female labour is usually cheaper, more compliant and more willing to accept lower wages, the demand for more female education will also rise. Is this a mixed blessing?

Resistance comes from transnational feminist alliances – although there are continued debates about the presentation of Third World wom-en, and of clashes of interests between rich and poor women. One inter-esting new global economic coalition is the Women’s Global Alliance for Development Alternatives, setting an agenda for global economic issues from the perspective of the women’s movement.

21

What is the Resistance to Globalisation and Monopolisation of Minds?

This brings us on to resistance in general – an important study for comparativists. Schools are not only concerned with preparing students as producers, but also as consumers, shaping consumer attitudes and practices, encouraged by the corporate sponsorship of educational insti-tutions and products (Burbules and Torres, 2000).

Writers such as Klein are concerned with the unquestioning ac-ceptance of advertising in schools. Increasing technology means poorer state schools turning to the private sector to finance technology purchas-es. Channel One in USA and Youth News Network in Canada are the best-known examples of in-school branding. Channel One gives current affairs programmes in exchange for two minutes of advertising a day. Teachers get the A/V equipment but are unable to adjust the volume dur-ing the broadcast, so that there is no “audience erosion.” There is an in-school computer network, “ZapMe,” which monitors students’ paths as they surf the Net, providing valuable market research. It sets little re-search tasks for them, so students are asked to create a new advertising campaign. The Cover Concepts company sells slick ads that wrap around books to 30,000 US schools, where teachers use them instead of plastic as protective jackets. Pepsi brands entire schools: “Pepsi – Offi-cial Soft Drink of Cayuga secondary school” is giant sign beside the road.

Klein asks “where is the opposition?” Unlike the furores over sex ed-ucation or prayer in schools, the move to allow advertising in education did not take the form of one sweeping decision, but rather thousands of little ones. Parents and teachers could not see a problem – they thought kids were bombarded by advertising anyway, and it was more important to get funding. Is there no unbranded space left? China of course is a huge market, with parents and grandparents spending on “the little Em-peror.” Klein talks ruefully of her feminist days – was this focussing on the wrong thing? On representation, rather than ownership? “We were too busy analysing the pictures being projected on the wall to notice that the wall itself had been sold.” (p. 124)

Yet there is evidence of resistance to current market ideology. Prop-osition 38 in California focused on school vouchers and would have per-mitted parents to send their children to private or religious schools by granting them vouchers for $4000 a year. This raised US$31 million from supporters but generated $32 million from oppositional forces and did not pass (Stromquist, 2002).

The major adversaries of globalisation in the poor countries have been the peasant movements, particularly in Latin America, parts of Asia, and to a lesser degree, Africa. Most opposition by NGOs has been to defend existing rights and interests threatened by global ruling classes

22

(Petras, 1999). Klein reckons that as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement, a vast wave of opposition squarely targeting transna-tional companies, particularly those with very high name-brand recogni-tion. Campus politics are broadening therefore from race, discrimination etc. to corporate power, labour rights etc. (although she acknowledges this is not the majority of the demographic group). Klein asks what the forces are that push more people to be enraged at MNCs, particularly young people.

September 11th and the attack on US capitalism did make people talk about the global haves and have-nots. But free trade is being rebranded as the war on terrorism. To criticise the US government is to be on the side of the terrorists. A strong public realm is needed, otherwise Osama fills the gaps – the extreme Islamic seminaries in Pakistan that indoctri-nated so many Taliban leaders thrive precisely because they fill a huge social welfare gap. The country spends 90% of its budget on military and on debt, but a pittance on education: the madrassas offer not just educa-tion but food and shelter. Post September 11, clinging to laissez faire free-market solutions, despite overwhelming evidence of their failings, looks a lot like blind faith, and as irrational as any belief system clung to by religious leaders fighting a suicidal jihad.

The rise of popular education movements in protest against globali-sation is therefore significant. The 1995 International Forum on Globali-sation held the first Global Teach-in in New York, bringing together lead-ing scientists, activists and researchers to examine the impact of the sin-gle, unfettered world market on democracy, human rights, labour and the environment. There were seminars on NAFTA, APEC, IMF, World Bank and structural adjustment.. The internet is a decisive weapon here. Pro-testers managed to get the Multilateral Agreement on Investment taken off the OECD agenda in 1998. An interesting comparative study would be the educational background of those who join resistance and protest movements. The emerging anti-globalisation movement is a diverse set of groups, with different levels of sophistication – unions, intellectuals, anarchists, cyber-activists as well as small farmers and indigenous groups. Lipman (2000) (quoted in Stromquist, 2002) reports resistance against neo-liberal policies at all levels of the educational system in her study of Chicago. NGOs do press for greater support of education; but are not really “oppositional.”

Most resistance is not aimed at changes in the educational are-na, despite the enormous consequences that formal education has on a society’s ideology and the social stratification being cre-ated by globalisation. There is a desperate need for more critical

23

examination by educators of current developments related to globalisation. (Stromquist 2002, p. 173)

Agenda for Comparative Education Research

From all the above, I suggest a menu of ten priorities for comparative education research in this era of globalisation.

1. Stopping doing achievement studies based on maths

achievement and conventional literacy indicators, i.e. the old school effectiveness indicators, and starting doing more comparative studies based on indicators of “achievement” in political literacy, agency, democracy, peace education and human rights education

2. Case studies of where education actually does contribute to a decrease in poverty (Durston argued this for Malawi, but what actually happened was that some of the money went to the community to build the schools, therefore helping the lo-cal economy; but it was not the actual education that con-tributed)

3. A new agenda for what in education contributes to economic and political sustainability across nations (including environ-mental sustainability).

4. Studies of where education has actually contributed to a general health improvement (not just that bought by bigger earnings) and a decline in the spread of HIV/AIDS

5. Studies of the impact of citizenship education or other types of education that have contributed to peace or conflict. (Question one for exam paper: critically evaluate either the American/UK invasion of Iraq or World Bank education strat-egy, or both). This might include critical media education and consumer education.

6. The study of resistances to the negative impact of globalisa-tion, markets, advertising, branding in education.

7. The study of resistance to testing and assessment regimes 8. The study of resistances to gendered practices and dispari-

ties, and of the impact of alliances And for comparative education impact itself:

9. The collection of examples about where comparative educa-tion research has actually made a difference to policy, how, and for how long.

24

10. The collection of successful strategies for influence on major agencies and opinion formers – UNESCO, World Bank etc., where they have taken account of comparative education re-search done outside their remit.

References Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary

Education. Oxford: Blackwell. Appleton, S., et al. (2004). “Does Investing in Education Reduce Poverty? Evi-

dence from Ghana, Uganda and South Africa.” http://www.id21.org/education/s5bft1g1.html

Brock-Utne. B. (2000). Whose Education for All? The Recolonization of the African Mind. New York: Falmer Press.

Broadfoot, P. (1999). “Not So Much a Context, More a Way of Life: Comparative Education in the 1990s.” In R. Alexander, P. Broadfoot and D. Phillips (eds.), Learning from Comparing: New Directions in Comparative Educational Re-search. Oxford: Symposium.

Burbules, N. and Torres, C. (eds.). (2000). Globalisation and Education: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Carney, S. (2003). “Globalisation, Neo-liberalism and the Limitations of School Effectiveness Research in Developing Countries: The Case of Nepal.” Glob-alisation, Societies and Education 1(1), pp. 87-101.

Crossley, M. and Watson, K. (2003). Comparative and International Research in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Cuban, L. (2001). “The Convenient Fallacy of Education.” San Jose Mercury News January 7, pp. 1C, 3C.

Dale, R. and Robertson, S. (2002). “The Varying Effects of Regional Organisations as Subjects of Globalisation of Education.” Comparative Education Review 46(1), pp. 10-36.

Davies, L. (2004). Conflict and Education: Complexity and Chaos. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Davies, L. and Kirkpatrick, G. (2000). The Euridem Project: A Review of Pupil De-mocracy in Europe. London: Children’s Rights Alliance.

DFID. (2000). Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work. London: Department for International Development.

Diamond, J. (1998). Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years. London, Vintage.

Hickling-Hudson, A. (2002). “Re-visioning from the Inside: Getting Under the Skin of the World Bank’s Education Sector Strategy.” International Journal of Edu-cational Development 22(6), pp. 565-577.

IIEP. (2004). Teachers: A Priority. Newsletter XXII(1), January-March. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.

Jones, P. (2000). “Globalisation and Internationalism: Democratic Prospects for World Education.” In N. Stromquist and K. Monkman (eds.), Globalisation and Education: Integration and Contestation across Cultures. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield.

25

Kerr, D. (2000). “Citizenship Education: An International Comparison.” In D. Law-ton, J. Cairns and R. Gardner (eds.), Education for Citizenship. London: Con-tinuum.

Klein, N. (2002). No Logo. London: Flamingo. Levin, H. (2000). “Economic Consequences of High-Stakes Testing.” Paper pre-

sented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research As-sociation, New Orleans, April 24-28.

Luke, A. and Luke, C. (2000). “A Situated Perspective on Cultural Globalisation.” In N. Burbules and C. Torres (eds.), Globalisation and Education: Critical Per-spectives. London: Routledge.

Luke, C. (2000). “Globalisation and Women in Higher Education Management in South East Asia.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 24-28.

McMahon, W. (2003). “Shorter and Longer Impacts of Education on Development Goals.” Paper presented at OXCON Conference, September.

Mok, K. (2000). “Impact of Globalisation: A Study of Quality Assurance Systems in Higher Education in Hong Kong and Singapore.” Comparative Education Re-view 44(2), pp. 148-174.

Ormerod, P. (1994). The Death of Economics. London: Faber and Faber. Petras, J. (1999). “Globalization: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of Contemporary Asia

29(1), pp. 3-37. Porter, J. (1999). Reschooling and the Global Future. Oxford: Symposium. Queseda Monge, R. (1998). Globalizacion y Dehumanizacion: Dos Caras del Capi-

talismo Avanzado. Heredia, Costa Rica: Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica.

Reynolds, D. and Farrell, S. (1996). Worlds Apart? A Review of International Sur-veys of Educational Achievement including England. London: HMSO.

Schriewer, J. (1999). “Coping with Complexity in Comparative Methodology: Issues of Social Causation and Processes of Macro-historical Globalisation.” In R. Alexander, P. Broadfoot and D. Phillips (eds.), Learning from Comparing: New Directions in Comparative Educational Research. Oxford: Symposium.

Schugurensky, D. and Davidson-Harden, A. (2003). “From Cordoba to Washing-ton: WTO/GATS and Latin American Education.” Globalisation, Societies and Education 1(3), pp. 321-357.

Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. London: Penguin. Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a Globalised World. Oxford: Rowman and

Littlefield. Sweeting, A. (1999). “Doing Comparative Historical Educational Research: Prob-

lems and Issues from and about Hong Kong.” Compare 29(3) pp. 269-286. Tikly, L. and Crossley, M. (2001). “Teaching Comparative and International Educa-

tion: Separation, Integration or Transformation?” Comparative Education Re-view 45(4), pp. 561-580.

Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J. and Amadeo, J. (1999). Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: IEA.

Torres, C. (1998). Democracy, Education and Multiculturalism: Dilemmas of Citi-zenship in a Global World. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Watson, K. (1999). “Comparative Educational Research: The Need for Reconcep-tualisation and Fresh Insights.” Compare 29(3), pp. 233-248.

26

Williams, C. (2000). “Education and Human Survival: The Relevance of the Global Security Framework for International Education.” International Review of Ed-ucation 46(3/4), pp. 183-203.

UNESCO. (1999). World Education Report. Paris: UNESCO.

27

Genealogical Reflections upon Historical Development of Comparative Education in Hong Kong and Macau Percy Kwok Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, Chinese University of Hong Kong Abstract This article briefly outlines the historical development of comparative edu-cation in Hong Kong and Macau. By adopting the genealogical approach, the comparative education discourses delivered at Comparative Educa-tion Society of Hong Kong Annual Conference 2002 will be deconstructed to depict recent developmental trends of comparative education, and some implications for continuing such an approach will be finally ad-dressed. Comparative Education Development in Hong Kong and Macau

Both Hong Kong and Macau had their own colonial histories under the sovereignty of United Kingdom and Portugal respectively. Colonial periods in Hong Kong ranged from 1841 to 1997, and Macau lasted from 1557 to 1999 before their return of sovereignty to Mainland China after 1997 and 1999 respectively. Unlike Mainland China and Taiwan, the de-velopment of comparative education was not so coherent or institutional-ized in that only some universities or other post-secondary colleges in teacher education offered some optional, non-specified or elective under-graduate or postgraduate courses, without any participation of other non-academic persons before the last two decades in Hong Kong. The Com-parative Education Society of Hong Kong (CESHK) was established by educators at the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) in 1989. Af-terwards, its executive committee members have been lecturers and pro-fessors at tertiary level and membership has quickly extended to other social circles of school practitioners and educational policy-makers in Hong Kong, Macau and educators or educational researchers in Mainland China.

So far social activities of CESHK have involved school visits in cross-cultural and cross-societal perspectives (like visits to Macau and Shen-zhen, a southern city of Mainland China) and academic ones included annual conferences and seminars by inviting scholars in comparative and international education from Mainland China, some Asian, European, and North and South American countries. Recently, the University of Hong Kong set up the Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC) in

28

1994, promoting more specified studies in comparative and international education in Hong Kong than before. There has been an increasing num-ber of monographs, journal papers, individual- or group-based research projects, seminars and conferences on comparative and international education (co-) organized by CERC or CESHK in collaboration with inter-national educational organizations like the Asian Development Bank. Sim-ilarly, the Comparative Education Policy Research Unit (CEPRU), found-ed in February 1999 at City University of Hong Kong, also played a vital role of comparing educational governance and educational policies with special reference to East Asia and Pacific rim. Over the years, there has been a steady increase in CESHK membership. In comparison, owing to limited human manpower and physical resources constraints, there has been no comparative education society or research centre in Macau so far. Macau educators, policy-makers and school practitioners with keen interests in comparative education have been joining CESHK activities every school year since 1989. Significance of Genealogical and Prosoprographic Analysis of Comparative Education

Recently, the field of comparative and international education has reached diversities, complexities and uncertainties (Crossley and Jarvis, 2000; Schriewer, 2000), facing challenges of other non-Western compar-ativists and ‘other-orthodox’ fields in the 21st century. There has been an urgent call for re-conceptualizing and re-framing educational issues in international and comparative education, rethinking the origins of com-parative education and the most important of all, re-establishing the roles or status of comparative education (Arnove, 1999; Watson, 1999). Other non-orthodox (like postmodernist) paradigms have been paid heed since the last decade (Rust, 1991).

Genealogy (dialectical relationships between knowledge, discourses and practices) can be regarded as non-historical approaches to investi-gate historical dimensions of the present, i.e. histories of institutions and practices in comparative education (Gutting, 1994). When analyzing the concepts of punishment, Foucault (1982, pp. 104-117, 130-133) found many ruptures and discontinuities through temporal changes of the con-cepts. When applying this Foucaultian notion of genealogy to socio-historical development of comparative education in a society or country, a penetrating discourse analysis of related activities, key stakeholders and their research agendas held by the corresponding academic bodies or institutions is required.

On evaluation, past documentary static reports of comparative edu-cation literature failed to realize their biased assumptions or value-laden research paradigms like post-positivism and hermeneutics. Through such

29

genealogical analysis, possible new research agendas to disclose or de-construct power-knowledge relationships within and between comparative education societies and research centers in a single society or country can be addressed:

• Deepening cross-cultural and cross-national comparisons of comparative education societies facilitated by high levels of ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) compe-tency among future comparativists (Wilson, 2003)

• Discovering temporal variations in conceptions of compara-tive and international education and their interrelationships (Wilson, 1994) among educators, school practitioners and research students (Paulston, 1999)

• Uncovering hidden value agendas and underlying assump-tions in the research outputs of research centers, textbooks and tertiary courses on comparative education and external forces shaping the memberships and activities of compara-tive education societies (Kwok, 2002)

• Mapping non-Euro-or non-Anglo-Saxon-centric origins and historical development of comparative education discourses (Gui and Bray, 2001; Kwok, 2002)

Deconstructing Discourses at the CESHK Annual Conference By adopting such genealogical approach, dialectical relationships between the stakeholders, research centres or academic units and their research agendas can be deconstructed to inform the readers of recent historical development of comparative education in Hong Kong and Macau. There were totally 26 presenters (excluding keynote ad-dresses) at the CESHK Annual Conference 2002, hosted by the Comparative Education Policy Research Unit, Dept. of Public and Social Administration in the City University of Hong Kong in February, 2002. Levels of their comparisons covered in various geographical domains of intra-society/intra-society, single-society/single-country, bi-society/bi-country, regional or cross-regional (involving more than 2 societies or countries) and global, international/multi-level studies [See table 1]. Thematic studies (based on presentation sessions) were widely classified in various fields of civic education, local educa-tional studies in Hong Kong, curriculum studies, economics and fi-nancing of education, higher education, teacher education, social and policy studies in education and other miscellaneous issues in com-parative and international education [See table 2].

30

Table 1. Geographical Domains of Comparisons Levels of geograph-ical domains (no. of sessions)

Geographical locations (presenter surnames being mentioned)

Intra-society, intra-country studies (6)

• Beijing and Hong Kong (Wu and Wu) • International Schools, Hong Kong (Shum; Ya-

moto) • Kerala, India (Mukundan) • Western Rural areas of Mainland China (Xiao) • Yunnan Province, Mainland China (Du)

Single society, single country studies (10)

• Hong Kong (Lo; Shive, Hui, McLaughlin; Postiglione and Yung; Yung)

• Japan (Cave) • Macau (Hui, Butler, Mang, Fung, Kwan and

Bray) • Mainland China (Cheung; Ip; Lu and Xiao) • USSR (Yan)

Bi-society, bi-country studies (3)

• Hong Kong and Mainland China (Fairbrother) • Hong Kong and Macau (Kam; Koo)

Regional or Cross-regional [involving more than 2 societies or countries] studies (6)

• Asia (Kwok; Mok and Lee) • Hong Kong, Mainland China and Taiwan

(Kwok) • Hong Kong, US and Australia (Kennedy, Lee

and Hahn) • Latin America (Post)

Global, international, multi-level studies (1)

• WCCES (Bray and Adamson)

The language used for presentation was mostly English with some Can-tonese and Putonghua [See table 3]. Embracing three levels of geograph-ical comparisons, investigation areas, and language media for presenta-tion, such preliminary genealogical analysis depicts certain degrees of depth and breadth of current comparativists who were located in or trav-eled to Hong Kong for the conference. Most presenters endeavored to make single-society or single-country comparisons and the second heat-ed comparisons involved intra-society/inter-society and regional/cross-regional domains. Lack of comparative lens focused on bi-society/bi-country and global, international levels. Investigation areas mostly cov-ered local studies in Hong Kong and some on higher education and eco-nomics and financing of education whilst some new issues concerning comparative education societies and agri-technological studies in

31

Table 2. Areas of Comparative Education Studies

Types (no. of sessions)

Presentation topics (presenter surnames)

Civic Educa-tion (2)

• Civic and Environmental Education (Wu and Wu) • Students’ civic understanding and attitudes (Kennedy,

Lee and Hahn) Local educa-tional studies in Hong Kong (7)

• Asian cram schools (Kwok) • Bi-sessional and whole-day schooling (Kam) • Ethnic theories and ‘Minzu’ in modern China (Cheung) • Impacts of political socialization and critical thinking on

university students’ attitudes towards nationalism (Fair-brother)

• International Schools (Yamoto) • NET Scheme in Hong Kong Schools (Shum) • Schooling children’s works, schooling and welfare (Post)

Curriculum Studies (1)

• Science teaching (Kraipeerpun)

Economics and Financ-ing of Educa-tion (3)

• Human Capital Development (Lu and Xiao) • Resource Financing of Rural Education in Mainland Chi-

na (Du) • Financing of Higher Education in Hong Kong (Yung)

Higher Edu-cation (4)

• Community College in Hong Kong (Shive, Hui, McLaugh-lin, Postiglione and Yung)

• Higher education development tre